Is Rahab of Jericho the same person as is mentioned in

Is Rahab of Jericho the same person as is mentioned in “Ruth” and Matthew 1:5" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:5?

Comparing the dates, this would seem impossible.

We certainly believe in their identity. Only one person of the name is known in the Old Testament (the “Rahab” of Psalm 87:4," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 87:4, etc., being a poetical designation for Egypt); and Matthew mentions a person of that name, living at the same epoch, as the well-known woman, without further description, as though everyone would know who was meant. This seems to point clearly to Rahab of Jericho. In the book of Ruth only three generations are given—Boaz, Obed and Jesse—between Salmon, the prince of Judah, who married Rahab, and David. The story of Ruth does not come chronologically after “Judges,” but as v. i of chap. i. tells us, is embedded in its history—”in the days when the judges ruled.” Salmon may have married Rahab many years after the taking of Jericho. The 450 years of the judges begin at the partition of the land and go on to Saul (Acts 13:20)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:20). Possibly Boaz was the son of the old age of Salmon and we know he was himself elderly when he married Ruth. There are still serious difficulties, but no doubt if we knew all, all would be plain. Perhaps the desire to find a second Rahab is due to a feeling as to her antecedents. The other women mentioned along with her in our Lord’s genealogy had all some disability. At least Rahab and Ruth were trophies of divine grace; and what are we to say of the wicked men in the genealogy, Rehoboam, Ahaz, Joram, Jehoiakim, etc.? Indeed, of the best of the links in the chain we must say, “All these once were sinners defiled in His sight.” Not one was worthy to be an ancestor of our Lord. But our Lord, though truly man by virgin birth, was completely detached from any inherited taint of the sin of Adam, by the fact of His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. He was “that Holy Thing” from His mother’s womb. He knew no sin, neither was sin in Him. Let go that, and Christianity must go at once, as far as we are concerned.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is discipline in the church carried out by all members or just the elders?

As passages such as Deutonomy 13:12 Deutonomy 17:4 -7; Deutonomy 19:17-18 teach that it must be the whole assembly that shall exercise discipline, does not the same apply in 1 Corinthians 5:4" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:4 and Matthew 18:15-20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15-20?

Is it not the cause of much division inside assemblies, that this is not carried out? (1 Corinthians 1:10-12)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:10-12). If there are divided opinions as to discipline, is it not more godly to wait on God till all are of the one mind and heart, even though the evidence may seem very plain?

The Lord is with His people at all times, with the two’s or three’s or the many, as well as with individuals, but the special presence of Matthew 18:20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20 is conditioned on their being gathered together to His Name—”eis to onoma”—that is, not promiscuously or for some social end, a meal or conversation, etc., but around His Person for prayer, or worship, or the remembrance of Himself. The same word is used in 1 Corinthians 5:4," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:4, though the name is not actually mentioned there as the gathering centre (eis to onoma) but as their authority for gathering (en to onomati). They were not coming together as an assembly to investigate the case, that had already been done by the Apostle and those responsible, with the help of any immediately concerned, but to carry out the discipline enjoined.

There is nothing to lead us to suppose there had been any canvass of the brethren or sisters before this, much less that such was contemplated at their meeting. Nor do I know of any Scripture for a parallel proceeding. Such an idea would imply that all in the assembly are qualified to judge the “pros and cons” of the matter,
which is quite contrary to the fact. If all were qualified to be overseers, then there need be none. In the case before us, how could the sad and sordid details be laid bare to all? In the same way in the case of Reception; all who are present hear the name announced for fellowship, and if they know any “just cause or impediment”, they should inform the elders, but otherwise they naturally trust in those who have the case in hand.

In cases of discipline, there are at times two or three who side with the evil-doer. I know of no Scripture which enjoins that everything must be held up, until these come round to the united judgment of elder brethren. The Apostle puts it in 2 Corinthians 2:6" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 2:6: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many” (or as R.V. has: “by the many”—margin; Greek “the more”). As Alford suggests, it was very unlikely that the anti-Pauline party were unanimous in the action of 1 Corinthians 5." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5. When once disciplinary action has been taken, it is very important that all should respect it.

It is indeed grievous when the reverse is the case. It is a curious phenomenon, but there are those who seem automatically to take sides with any who have been dealt with. It is a misplaced charity and a misnamed impartiality, and such only succeed in bolstering up evil-doers, and in undermining the confidence
of brethren in themselves.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How much intimacy is appropriate for couples who are dating?

What activities and how much intimacy are appropriate for couples who are dating?

Christians should seek God's will for a life's partner during courtship. Dating is the time for learning to know each other and planning for the future. It is not (as in society) simply for a good time, or experimentation, or conquest.

Two words help answer our question: purity and modesty Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:2 to encourage "the younger (women) as sisters, with all purity." In Genesis 24:65," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 24:65, Rebecca, when about to meet her husband-to-be, "took a vail, and covered herself."

A young man should regard his intended as his "sister" during courtship. He should have genuine respect for her that will preserve from violating her purity. An embrace and kiss when greeting or parting is appropriate with his sister and is equally so with his intended. Their greetings may be more than a quick peck on the cheek but they should avoid any activity leading to greater physical intimacy. Both should dress and behave so as not to stir up strong desire in the other. Strong desire may lead to disaster and loss of purity. Couples should avoid circumstances or activities where they would be ashamed to be found. A good testimony is vital.

Couples need time together. Eating out, drives through the country and visiting points of interest afford suitable opportunities. Visiting older Christians will encourage them. The young may also gain insights of great value for their future together.

They need to learn each other's values, expectations and goals. They should recognize and make needed adjustments. These are easier to make during courtship than after marriage. Reading and praying together will promote spiritual bonding and growth and begin a good habit for a lifetime together.

J. Slabaugh

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible say about sex before marriage? or premarital sex?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL in your answer.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Where did the "Gap Theory" come from?

Where did the idea of a "gap" between the first two verses of Genesis 1" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1 originate?

Thomas Chalmers of Edinburgh University first proposed the Gap Theory in 1814. By inserting a chronological gap between the first two verses of the Bible, Chalmers felt that he could make room for the vast ages demanded by the geologists of his day, yet still maintain a literal interpretation of the Scripture. This view, now called the Gap Theory, asserts that the account beginning at Genesis 1:2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2 describes a re-creation, not the original creation. George Pember widely disseminated Chalmer's Gap Theory, with some embellishments, in his book "Earth's Earliest Ages" (first edition, 1876). Pember believed that Genesis 1:1" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1 described an original creation, which included a race of pre-Adamic men and a world of prehistoric animals. He taught that God destroyed this primeval creation when Lucifer fell. A footnote in the Scofield Reference Bible (first edition, 1917) enormously popularized the Gap Theory in the English speaking world. It is only fair to add that many able and godly teachers among us men deserving of deepest respect - hold this view.

D. Vallance
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is there a difference in the treatment of those put away from the assembly and those who leave the f

Is there a difference in the treatment of those put away from the assembly and those who leave the fellowship?

Those put away from the assembly have the additional stipulation "with such an one no not to eat" (1 Corinthians 5:11)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11). Social interaction with them must cease. This is not the case with one who voluntarily leaves the fellowship. Social interaction may, however, decline because he begins to form associations that are spiritually detrimental. When every spiritual effort has been made to encourage a believer to remain in the assembly and still he persists in leaving, the assembly should be sadly informed of this decision. This, though, is different from his being put away. Both an individual put away and one who leaves the fellowship should always be treated with courtesy and kindness. The concern of all the assembly should be for the spiritual restoration and recovery of both. Consistent public and private prayer to this end is appropriate. Every contact with such individuals should be influenced by a desire that they will submit to the Lord and His Word for their own spiritual benefit.

These cases differ somewhat in their return to the assembly. Greater caution may be suitable for those put away. In both cases, their attendance as they "sit back" at assembly meetings indicates some degree of recovery. Also, before either is received back into the fellowship, he should give evidence that his spiritual strength has been restored, that the reason for his leaving has been judged before the Lord, and that his motivation for returning is spiritual. Appropriate questions about the person’s life and doctrine must be asked by the elders, although in a considerate manner.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is wavering faith the reason for unanswered prayer (James 1:7)?

Is wavering faith the reason for unanswered prayer (James 1:7)" TARGET="_blank">James 1:7)?

No. On occasion, God allows us to have what we request. The result is not initially the best for us (Psalm 106:15)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 106:15). He allows this so we will appreciate the security of His will. What He allows in our life is always only for our good -eventually, it is the best for us. The motive of such prayer was self-will, not faith. Nevertheless, God granted the prayer.

In James 1:6," TARGET="_blank">James 1:6, 7 the tried believer asks for wisdom. Verse three makes it clear that faith is being tried. In verse five, faith is being expressed and strengthened. The enemy of faith is double mindedness, a mind for the values of this world and a mind for the values of the world to come. That's the basic conflict James highlights throughout his book. When the thinking of the world motivates a believer's prayer, he cannot "ask in faith." Faith sees another and eternal world; it asks in keeping with that realm. In response to that prayer, our God gives liberally.

What hinders prayer is a mind that tries to accommodate itself to two worlds: the temporal and the eternal. Faith is not working consistently and the result is receiving nothing from God.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a believer be possessed by a demon? Can demons attack us?

Can a believer be possessed by a demon? Can demons attack us?
Possessed? No.
Attacked? Yes.

Demons may enter the body of an unbeliever and take control of his thoughts and emotions but the Chrisitian is protected from Satan and his angels for the following reasons:

#1 Christians are indwelled by the Holy Spirit

1 John 4:4" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:4 says

Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

"He that is in you" refers to God, and more specifically, the Holy Spirit who indwells the believer since the moment of believing in Christ through the gospel.

Ephesians 1:13-14" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (14) who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

#2 Christians are no longer under the power of Satan

Colossians 1:13-14" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, (14) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

But what about demon-possessed people in the Bible?

There are a number of examples of people who were possessed by a demon, but none of them were believers. The demoniacs of Gadara (Matthew 8:28;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:2)" TARGET="_blank">Mark 5:2) are them most startling examples of demon possession. These show us the extreme change that came upon them once Christ had driven the demons from them. These were not mere problems such as "demons of depression" or "demons of mental illness" or "demons of alcoholism", but true possession of a demonic spirit.

Were Ananias and Sapphira possessed by Satan?

Were Ananias and Sapphira believers? Yes. They were true followers of Christ, who possessed eternal life and are now in heaven. They were in the "congregation of those who believed" (Acts 4:32)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 4:32) and were involved with the Holy Spirit (v. 3), but remained hypocrites. They sinned under the influence of Satan. Satan did not indwell or possess them, but he rather slyly suggested this sin of hypocrisy in their mind or heart.

What does delivered unto Satan mean?

1 Corinthians 5:4-5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:4-5 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

This discipline of sin the Church is further explained at the end of the passage.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? (13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Delivering one to Satan is therefore to put someone out of the communion, the protection and godly influence of the church and to let the believer live in the world, outside of the fellowship of the church. He is once again in Satan's realm.

A believer can be attacked by Satan, as seen in the story of Job in Job 1:1-20." TARGET="_blank">Job 1:1-20. He suffered the loss of home, business, health and family as a direct result of Satan's work. Ananias and Sapphira were the victims of his mental attacks. Believers must guard against his spiritual attacks (Ephesians 6:11-18)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:11-18) which are best combated by learning and holding to good doctrines.

Shad David Sluiter

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the meaning of "He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin" (1 Peter 4:1)?

What is the meaning of "He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin" (1 Peter 4:1)" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 4:1)?

The first word of the verse, "forasmuch," connects the first 6 verses of chapter 4 with the end of chapter 3. The context in chapter 3 deals with suffering for righteousness’ sake and for well doing (vv. 14, 17). "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh" revisits 3:18. Within that context, Peter has just spoken of baptism (v. 21), "which doth also now save us . . . by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (v. 21). In the opening verses of chapter 4, Peter amplifies this statement.

The salvation to which he refers is not from the penalty of sin but from a life of sin (see 4:3, 4). For righteousness’ sake (v. 14), Christ suffered for us. The believers to whom Peter writes were baptized and consequently suffered for righteousness’ sake. Being identified with us, Christ suffered for our sake; being identified with Him in baptism, believers suffered for His sake. It is fitting that these persecuted believers should be like-minded with Christ, submitting to God’s will (3:17).These believers were being restrained from their former sins ("ceased from sin"). They were saved from their former life, a life of sin, by 2 factors. First, by being baptized, they put a barrier between themselves and the "disobedient," their persecutors. Second, baptism expresses what took place at salvation’s moment. United with Christ and His death, believers are dead to sin (Romans 6:2)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:2).

But Peter has said that this salvation is by the resurrection of Christ, not by His death. Being restrained from sin is not an end in itself, but a means to God’s purpose that believers should now live "to the will of God" (v. 2).

A free paraphrase of these verses could be, "Therefore since Christ suffered for us in His body of flesh, believers should likewise submit to God’s will when they suffer reproach for Him because they have been baptized. Those who have thus suffered have been restrained from (‘ceased from’) their former life of sin in order that they should not live to fulfill the usual lusts of humanity; they should live the rest of their time to the will of God."

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is legalism?

Please explain "legalism." Is it the same as what "legalizing teachers" promoted in New Testament times?

"Legalism" as promoted by Judaizing teachers (Acts 15:1)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:1) taught that a person needed to keep the law in order to be saved. This is different from the commonly accepted (but not Biblically defined) concept of legalism today. Legalism is not a close, careful and complete obedience to the Word of God. That is faithfulness. Legalism goes beyond the Word of God and adds rules and requirements, not for salvation, but as either a test of reality or as a measure of spirituality. It may involve a sincere desire to please the Lord and take the form of "interpreting" what certain verses mean or "applying" Scriptures. Because it is of the flesh (Galatians 5:19,20)," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:19,20), it usually demands adherence to its view and allows no time for personal faith to accept or for personal exercise to develop (Romans 14:3)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14:3)

A.J. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu